benevolently received by the democratic bourgeoisie — precisely for this reason it is the most loathsome filth, the most abominable "pestilence." A million sins, abominations, acts of violence, and physical contagions are far more readily exposed by the masses and therefore far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea dressed in the most resplendent "ideological" garments of a little god. A Catholic priest corrupting young girls (about whom I happened to read just now in a German newspaper) is far less dangerous precisely for "democracy" than a priest without cassock, a priest without crude religion, a priest of ideas and democracy, preaching the creation and fashioning of a little god. For the first priest is easy to expose, condemn, and drive out, whereas the second cannot be driven out so simply; exposing him is a thousand times more difficult; no "fragile and pitiably unstable" philistine will agree to "condemn" him.

And you, knowing the "fragility and pitiable instability" (Russian — why Russian? is Italian any better??) of the petty-bourgeois soul, trouble this soul with poison most sweetly sugared and most concealed beneath candies and all manner of brightly colored paper wrappings!!

Truly, it is dreadful.

"Enough already of self-spitting that replaces self-criticism among us."

And is god-building not the worst variety of self-spitting?? Every person engaged in building god, or even merely permitting such construction, spits upon himself in the most terrible way, engaging instead of "deeds" in precisely self-contemplation, self-admiration, wherein such a person "contemplates" the most filthy, stupid, slavish traits or features of his own "I," deified by god-building.

From the standpoint not personal but social, every god-building is precisely the amorous self-contemplation of stupid petty bourgeoisie, fragile philistinism, dreamy "self-spitting" of philistines and petty bourgeoisie, "despairing and exhausted" (as you were pleased to say most aptly about the soul — only one should not say "Russian," but petty-bourgeois, for Jewish, Italian, English — all are the same devil, everywhere mean petty bourgeoisie is equally abominable, and "democratic petty bourgeoisie," occupied with ideological drudgery, is doubly abominable).

Reading through your article and seeking to discover how such a lapse could have come from you, I am at a loss. What is this? Remnants of the "Confession," which you yourself did not approve?? Echoes of it??

Or something else — for example, an unsuccessful attempt to bow down to the viewpoint of general democracy instead of the proletarian viewpoint? Perhaps in order to speak with "democracy in general" you wished (forgive the expression) to coo, as one coos with children? Perhaps for a "popular exposition" to the philistines you wished to permit for a moment their, the philistines', prejudices??

But this is a mistaken method in all senses and in all respects!

I wrote above that in democratic countries it would be entirely improper for a proletarian writer to issue a call "to democracy, to the people, to society and science." Well, and in our Russia?? Such a call is not quite proper, for it too somehow panders to philistine prejudices. A call somehow general to the point of vagueness — even among us Izgoyev from "Russian Thought" would sign it with both hands. Why then take such slogans as you yourself distinguish excellently from Izgoevism, but the reader will not be able to distinguish?? Why for the reader throw a democratic veil instead of a clear distinction between petty bourgeoisie (fragile, pitiably unstable, exhausted, despairing, self-contemplating, god-contemplating, god-building, god-pandering, self-spitting, chaotically-anarchistic — a wonderful word!! and so on and so forth) — and proletarians (capable of being spirited not in words, capable of distinguishing the "science and society" of the bourgeoisie from their own, bourgeois democracy from proletarian)?

Why do you do this?

It is devilishly offensive.

Your V. I.